revolution saint

I honestly despair that child abuse can be considered party political.

Love the Jam but Weller has had a few dodgy spells; Style Council for me was awful and despite his protestations a lot of his solo stuff has become predictable dad rock.

Just watching a documentary on religion and politics in the US on PBS which is quite interesting although fairly superficial. It got me wondering though if anyone knows if there is a natural link between the free market neonservatives (Friedman and the chicago boys) and the christian far right? The documentary seems to suggest there isn't and that it's more a marriage of convenience which makes sense. Anyway, I just find it interesting - would like to know if anyone has any thoughts or recommendations on further reading. BTW I'm not trying to make any point on politics or religion at all.

No real opinion on Di Canio as a manager as I don't know enough about him. He's proved he's a fascist **** though which is enough for me to say no thanks.

Jamie Oliver - fat tongued mockney w*nker.

Well if she's just a figurehead then we can get rid of her then surely? After all she doesn't really do much and the idea that she should get the lucrative figurehead position purely and simply because she inherited it is, well, stupid. Ironically Puerto Rica is actually a republic - it's head of state is the US president but unfortunately it's citizens don't get a vote in US presidential elections - the US can be a little disingenous about the democracy it promotes though. Anyway, bottom line is that if you think our head of state should be decided by birthright alone then you're a monarchist, if not then you're a republican.

The monarchy is not democratic and hereditary rule is ridiculous. Pretty sure no one would dispute that? Any monarchist defence is therefore the defence of an absurdity.

Think we'll struggle if it's Schneiderlin who is out. Would also struggle without Clyne.

West Ham. Fans have some kind of delusion they're a much bigger club than they are and they continuously bang on about winning the world cup single handedly. Plus they always seemed to infiltrate into home areas of SMS last time we were in the prem. Glad they have fat sam tho....

Hi Raggy, I remember you and the old fella says hello. He's enjoying semi retirement these days and looking after the grandkids. Some of the stories he tells of the work nights out are legendary.

Liberal Democrat president Tim Farron said Andrew Mitchell's comments, as reported, were "beyond unacceptable". Surely something is either acceptable or unacceptable?

Well personally I think it's an interesting point. I think the media perception is different to reality. From our perspective it probably is difficult for media types to differentiate between us, Norwich, Derby or any other decent provincial club - we've all got good stadia (maybe a bit bland), decent attendances but no - to an outsider we probably don't stand out particularly. There are some things you could mention like the biggest single attendance for a club at the new Wembley when we got to the JPT final (compare that to your efforts to sell your allocation in the FA Cup final). We could talk about attendances and circumstances all day though so let's not get into that debate. The point is probably valid that when journalists and pundits talk about Southampton then the the fans are not the first thing that are mentioned - no disgrace in that as we've got other things to talk about. So the question is why do Pompey supporters have such a prominence in their media identity that is ironically inversely proportional to their actual support? Two reasons for me, and that's that there really isn't much else to talk about. Shambles of a stadium, plenty of debt, no academy, poor team, and a soap opera for owners - nothing to take any positive from there and because a lot of journos like to have a bit of balance then what can they point to? That Tw*t With The Bell. Unfortunately for your lot I think for the outside world that is what defines you and personally I wouldn't be happy about that. If you didn't have him then you'd just look like any other badly run club and there are plenty of them around.

Sounds like you'd almost certainly know him then. Surname is Leversuch, was there from 79 - 93/94 when he also took voluntary redundancy. Quite a few characters around back then from what he tells me and I recall. If you ever got in the Esso Club between 1990 - 2002 then I probably served you as well...

You might know my Dad then, name of Roger, worked as a Mech fitter. Would be a shame if the place closes down, anyone remember the kids christmas parties? Awesome if you were a young.

My parents are in their 60's but do this or something very similar every other year. They did Route 66 this year. All they do is book a flight, 1st night's accommodation and a car - after that they just see what happens. Must have done most of USA now and never had any problems.

Totally agree with that mate.

You got all that from 45 mins? Really? I thought he did well but let's not get carried away here. Personally I'd play him as one of the front 3 - might see a little less of the ball but will be more dangerous when he gets it. Pleased to see Rodriguez come on and hold the ball up well in the CF position though. End of the day, to coin a phrase, we lost to the better side and there's no real disgrace in that. Actually if that's the way we're aspiring to play (like Arsenal today) then we've had a good lesson; sure we'll learn from it.

Great, so we've signed a 7M back up striker for Lambert? I know we needed cover but really? And if he were that good down the centre then why didn't NA start him there against City, or Wigan? Or play him there when he came on against Utd? So whilst you may think it's narrow thinking you may want to also have a word with Nigel.

With all due respect I hate these spurious player / fan comparisons as it adds nothing to the debate. For every Morgan, Beattie comparison I could add Lee Todd and Stig Johansson - they looked rubbish initially and ended up being rubbish, it's an equally valid comparison. The difference between Rodriguez and Beattie / Morgan is that even in their first few games they showed quality whereas even his supporters would have to admit Rodriguez has been average. Now you can argue he's being played out of position which is true but what do you do about it? Drop Lambert in the hope it turns out well? That's not really a great idea. There only seems to be two viable options IMO and that's we either change our formation and play two up front, or Rodriguez needs to get a lot better in the left sided forward position, and a lot better quickly.

Well the author of that piece has a point - Rodriguez hasn't looked like a 7m player so far. I know he's being played on the left of a front 3 (not really left wing) but surely that's the problem; when will he get a chance in a central position? On current form he doesn't look anywhere near as effective as Lambert so it'll be hard to displace him - have we spent that money on a cup player and back up to RL? Maybe in a couple of seasons time it'll be different but not at the moment. I think Rodriguez is going to have to up his game in the position he's played so far as that's the one he'll get most opportunity to play in. The worrying thing from his point of view is Lallana looks better there and we still have Lee to come in. God knows what Ramirez will add to that equation. I don't know about anyone else but when we signed him I didn't think we'd be signing someone who'd either struggle to get into the team or make an impact. Course it's early days but so far it hasn't been promising.

I guess the question is, is it right to give your ST to someone else when you can't go (or accept one). Everything else is irrelevant bull****. Forget NC and forget MLT, is it right? If you can honestly say you've done neither then good for you - you get an honest say in the debate. If not, well you know where that argument takes you.

For the benefit of unbelievers I'd rather he served his sentence here and now. Religious mob get enough time in the after life so that's only fair....

Ah well it needs to be simplistic to cut out the crap. The facts are there is enough justification to deem the war illegal; there was no UN mandate for it, the UN inspectors had found no evidence of WMDs but wanted to continue (we didn't give them that opportunity), hell we didn't even prosecute someone when they broke the official secrets act citing as a defence that this was not a legal war and not in the best interests of the country. That should be enough for a trial and so far the only defence from Blair has been that he did what he felt was right at the time. I don't doubt that one moment but he was demonstrably proved wrong and that's enough grounds for a trial. He'll get his chance to defend himself so why not let justice and law have it's opportunity? Ironically it's one of the reasons we cite as justification for war....

I'm probably being simplistic in my argument but I'm fairly sure we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMDs, and they didn't. Stands to reason therefore that anyone responsible for that invasion (on that basis) is also accountable for the deaths of thousands of innocent people and it isn't unreasonable to suggest they stand trial.

Who here hasn't given their ST to someone when they couldn't attend a game? And how many others have accepted one in similar circumstances? Quite a few I'd guess. If that's all MLT has done and he's been targeted by NC then that's pretty bad form by NC and he needs to grow up a bit. Without denying the job NC has done and appreciating it, this club did not start when Marcus bought it. It started a long time ago and many people figure in that MLT included. We've lost the Ted Bates trophy and at least one of the legend lounge names, that's not appealing to me but I'll put up with it. I don't find it acceptable when IMO our best player ever is singled out and punished for something most of us do.